VI. One other principle, which may be called the principle of divergence plays, I believe, an important part in the origin of species. The same spot will support more life if occupied by very diverse forms: we see this in the many generic forms in a square yard of turf (I have counted 20 species belonging to 18 genera),Ã¢â‚¬â€or in the plants and insects, on any little uniform islet, belonging almost to as many genera and families as to species.Ã¢â‚¬â€ We can understand this with the higher, animals whose habits we best understand. We know that it has been experimentally shown that a plot of land will yield a greater weight, if cropped with several species of grasses than with 2 or 3 species. Now every single organic being, by propagating so rapidly, may be said to be striving its utmost to increase in numbers. So it will be with the offspring of any species after it has broken into varieties or sub-species or true species. And it follows, I think, from the foregoing facts that the varying offspring of each species will try (only few will succeed) to seize on as many and as diverse places in the economy of nature, as possible. Each new variety or species, when formed will generally take the places of and so exterminate its less well-fitted parent.

The very phrase "survival of the fittest" clearly entails death of "the unfit". Why then is it improper to ask why the allegedly unfit remain alive? It is not improper at all.

Darwin discussed this sort of thing more than once. He seems to me to have grown more and more adamant about it over time. In more recent decades, the competition inherent in evolutionism has been downplayed considerably. "Selection" means death. Victory consists not merely of surviving, but the failure of the competition to survive.

It doesn't matter if one imagines big steps or small. The first monkey-girl on the way to becoming human had to reproduce. Her offspring had to compete with and mix with the regular monkey types. Now either they blend in completely, making one big group of monkey-people, or they form a group of their own and compete with the inferior type.

Typically, "geographic isolation" is introduced, when "the unfit" need to be protected from competition. In the case of humans, we're told it happened in Africa - not on some remote island.

This is an opportune time for this topic I think, because the "Oh well, it's just pure dumb luck" response runs contrary to the current fad claims of evolution being a non-random process..

Humans did not evolve from modern apes. Humans and modern apes both evolved from a common ancestor. That is why there are still apes.

This thoughtless assertion does not even acknowledge the issues, let alone attempt resolution.

But as long as I'm posting, I'll point out that subsequent sects have no better hope than Darwin had. We're told that "beneficial" mutations (and mutations in general) spread throughout populations and achieve fixation. If this really took place, the whole population should have obtained basically the same set of mutations. Hopeless. Some sort of "lucky exception" to the rule will have to be posited, acknowledging chance and rendering the rule a non-rule.

The very phrase "survival of the fittest" clearly entails death of "the unfit". Why then is it improper to ask why the allegedly unfit remain alive? It is not improper at all.

Darwin discussed this sort of thing more than once. He seems to me to have grown more and more adamant about it over time. In more recent decades, the competition inherent in evolutionism has been downplayed considerably. "Selection" means death. Victory consists not merely of surviving, but the failure of the competition to survive.

It doesn't matter if one imagines big steps or small. The first monkey-girl on the way to becoming human had to reproduce. Her offspring had to compete with and mix with the regular monkey types. Now either they blend in completely, making one big group of monkey-people, or they form a group of their own and compete with the inferior type.

Typically, "geographic isolation" is introduced, when "the unfit" need to be protected from competition. In the case of humans, we're told it happened in Africa - not on some remote island.

This is an opportune time for this topic I think, because the "Oh well, it's just pure dumb luck" response runs contrary to the current fad claims of evolution being a non-random process..

Ever have one of those really long nights where you can't sleep? I'm supposed to be getting up for work in 4 hours. Shell oil isn't gonna get much out of me tomorrow.

Anyway, humans are apes, well more specifically, great apes. So what you're basically asking is why are there no humans. Of course, you won't accept that and it doesn't really explain anything.

Ask yourself this. If MRSA evolved from regular staph bacteria, then why is there still regular staph bacteria?? Well, you already nailed one part of it with isolation. The 2nd is selection pressure. There's really no issue here.

The truth is humans share the same lineage as chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, but humans and chimpanzees diverged most recently. The lineages the led to chimps and humans existed separately, and they likely weren't competing against each other as they occupied different biological niches.

The truth is humans share the same lineage as chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, but humans and chimpanzees diverged most recently. The lineages the led to chimps and humans existed separately, and they likely weren't competing against each other as they occupied different biological niches.

A rhetorical question I've heard in responce to this question is "Why are there still British people if there are Americans?"

Regards,

Arch.

Hello Arch, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s good to hear from you. Your name looks familiar, have we meet somewhere before?

Anyway, that argument is a non sequitur. Neither Americans nor British are (nor is there real evidence that they ever were) descendants of an ape-like creature. Both are intelligent, can reason and can speak. Both can conceptualize, write, design, create and build. None of which has been demonstrated by any ape, or ape-like creature.

Which brings me to another question along these lines; if we (as Ã¢â‚¬Å“supposedÃ¢â‚¬Â animals) have Ã¢â‚¬Å“purportedlyÃ¢â‚¬Â spent the last few millions of years Ã¢â‚¬Å“allegedlyÃ¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolvingÃ¢â‚¬Â from primordial slime, why is man (of all this earthÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s inhabitance) the only Ã¢â‚¬Å“creaturesÃ¢â‚¬Â with these features?

And no, a dogÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s bark and a whaleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s singing arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t the same as our language.

Gorillas date much older than Australopithicus or Habilis.So the question remains,why were apes around before their ancestors (10-11 million years ago) and why did every other species change except them?

Based on genetic evidence, gorillas and humans were thought to have split away from a common ancestor about eight million years ago.

The world's oldest gorilla fossil has been found in Ethiopia, defying earlier assumptions about ape and human evolution, scientists at the National Museum of Ethiopia announced Wednesday.

Scientists believe the nine teeth unearthed during an excavation near Addis Ababa belong to a newly discovered type of 10-million-year-old gorilla. If their data is correct, the fossil could reveal several new truths on ape and human evolution.

"We used to believe, based on genetic information, DNA studies and molecular studies, that the splits between chimpanzees and the human line on one side and the gorilla line on the other side Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ happened around eight million years ago," said paleontologist Berhane Asfaw, who helped unearth the fossil. "But based on this new information, the split had to happen before 10 million years ago. It means that information has to be adjusted in every textbook."

This thoughtless assertion does not even acknowledge the issues, let alone attempt resolution.

Which issues? You asked a simple question and got a simple answer. There are 'still' apes because modern apes and humans followed different evolutionary paths from a common ancestor because different populations of that ancestor had different selective pressures operating on them and it produced different species.

You mentioned 'geographic isolation' and indeed you are on the right path. Geographic isolation is extremely important to the process of speciation.

I'm undecided. Since what I write is being ignored, I'm pretty much ignoring the writings which only serve to inform me that I'm being ignored. I'm considering making it more permanent by employing the handy, dandy forum feature.

I'm undecided. Since what I write is being ignored, I'm pretty much ignoring the writings which only serve to inform me that I'm being ignored. I'm considering making it more permanent by employing the handy, dandy forum feature.

I'll be weighing the for's and against's.

ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s because you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exist in some peopleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s reality! As a matter of crypto-fact, you canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even prove IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m responding to you right now!!

Gorillas date much older than Australopithicus or Habilis.So the question remains,why were apes around before their ancestors (10-11 million years ago) and why did every other species change except them?

Based on genetic evidence, gorillas and humans were thought to have split away from a common ancestor about eight million years ago. www.cbc.ca/news/story/2007/08/22/tech-fossil070822.html -

You're not even making an argument here because no biologist would ever attempt to say habilis and australopithicus are ancestors of gorillas. Your thinking seems to be limited to the notion that all living apes must have the same most recent common ancestor. I already said once in this thread that humans and chimps split more recently than gorillas. What does that mean?? Well it means that humans, chimps, and gorillas would have evolved along separate lineages.

You're not even making an argument here because no biologist would ever attempt to say habilis and australopithicus are ancestors of gorillas.

The point,that everyone else got besides you,was stasis.Gorillas have been gorillas since way before any human ancestor,so there is no evidence of divergence.According to adult comic books (evolutionists journals) humans and chimps split from a common ancestor ~7 million years ago,so how do explain gorilla stasis for 11 million years?

You're not even making an argument here because no biologist would ever attempt to say habilis and australopithicus are ancestors of gorillas.

The point,that everyone else got besides you,was stasis.Gorillas have been gorillas since way before any human ancestor,so there is no evidence of divergence.According to adult comic books (evolutionists journals) humans and chimps split from a common ancestor ~7 million years ago,so how do explain gorilla stasis for 11 million years?

I already addressed your issue in my post. The lineage diverged however many millions of years ago. Nobody would argue that gorillas have remained unchanged for that entire time. Heck, we currently have multiple species of gorillas which would indicate something other than stasis.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Gorilla is a genus. Canis is a genus. Homo is a genus. Felidae is a genus. Species exists below the genus level. Using your logic, let's just find a fossil of a dog and say dogs have been in stasis for however long.